If inflammatory comments is reminding people of when you were cheerleading Sharky Hayes 'Stadium grab' campaign, by stating to the media that Mr Hayes received a standing ovation, when everyone in that room that night, knew it never happened.
So for those of you who have already decided that Andy Harman is the saviour and questioning why he isn’t the preferred choice of the Trust Board (obviously because Mr Stroud et al are corrupt), how about if you replaced his name with that of another local, successful businessman who has a playing history with the club - and already has experience of running a football club.
Graham Westley.
Would any of you be so keen then? I’d wager not...
Just because Mr Harman has a connection to the club doesn’t suddenly make him the next Jack Walker. That’s not to say he might not be of course, just showing that he isn’t necessarily the best choice just because of his past - and there may be genuinely valid reasons why he doesn’t appear to be the current preferred investor.
Not the best example Mr Fidget.
Graham Westley was not a Wycombian and had a very short spell at Wycombe.
Where as Mr Harman hails from Totteridge, had 5 years at loakes park after coming through the reserves, also played for Marlow. Started his career at Holmer Green, played Sunday football for the Angel pub and still lives locally.
“A plan by the board of the Darlington Cricket Club to sell the former football ground for a housing development was controversial because of a 1903 Deed of Foundation of the Feethams Cricket Field Trust which stated that the land in question was acquired by the Trust "for the purpose of securing the said premises as an open space to be used for Cricket and other Athletic exercises".[3] However in 2009 the Board sold the football field to Esh Developments,[4][5] which on-sold the land in 2013 to Persimmon Homes. In 2014 Persimmon lodged a planning application to construct 82 homes rather than the 146 houses previously proposed.”
@DevC - perhaps you can enlighten us all with the inside knowledge you have about why this exact same thing couldn’t happen at Adams Park, and the inside knowledge you have about how else an investor could expect to turn a profit?
This whole thread once again underlines the dangers of certain posters leaking what they claim to be confidential information. I know Andy Harman and he’s a good guy. I have no idea if he has been ‘alienated’ by people involved with the club; I have no idea if he has made an offer to the club and if he has what that offer might have been. I have no idea who the other would be investors are or what they have offered. Therefore I’m prepared to wait until more information is available rather than leaping to conclusions based purely on rumours.
@drcongo , I could respond in the same aggressive manner that sadly seems so prevalent on social media but frankly would prefer not to. Is it really not possible to disagree about an important issue without descending to abuse.
As it happens, if you are describing asset stripping, you are quite wrong in "how it works". Asset strippers do not build "huge white elephant stadiums", they cost far too much money. Nor do they charge companies they own rent - there is no point taking cash from a company they own (known in business as wooden dollars). What they do do is prey on companies desperately short of cash with property in a prime residential area. The old Loakes Park would have been ideal, Adams Park less so - they would almost certainly not get resi planning permission. I ask you the same question I asked Wendover - if asset stripping is your concern, woyuld it help you if the trust arranged a independent development valuation of Adams park?
The lesson of Torquay though is pertinent to the issue we have in front of us. Torquay did (and for now still does) play at an asset in prime residential area. Torquay was run by well meaning club supporters who didnt have the resources to subsidise the club. Torquay couldnt sustain league football without subsidy. Torquay started slipping down the leagues but the well meaning supporters didnt take action quick enough to find external funds to halt the playing and financial slide. Torquay ran out of money as a result such that they teetered on the edge of insolvency. At the very last minute Torquay had to reach out to anyone they could to survive another day. The only person interested at that stage was an asset stripper. That is exactly the scenario the Trust board are trying to avoid.
Yes maybe, but.... there may have been many many declarations of interest over the years but do you think we should be informed of all of them and have the opportunity to consider all of the proposals?
Or should we leave it to the appointed people to make the decisions for us?
Maybe he could pop down to Coventry and explain to them that it never happened to them because “that’s not how it works” and they must have imagined it all and they actually own the Ricoh and shouldn’t pay any more rent on it.
Should probably tell the people living in those houses on Feethams to move out too in case a football match breaks out. Never happens. Nobody builds big white elephant stadia. Nobody.
@Fidget said:
So for those of you who have already decided that Andy Harman is the saviour and questioning why he isn’t the preferred choice of the Trust Board (obviously because Mr Stroud et al are corrupt), how about if you replaced his name with that of another local, successful businessman who has a playing history with the club - and already has experience of running a football club.
Graham Westley.
Would any of you be so keen then? I’d wager not...
Just because Mr Harman has a connection to the club doesn’t suddenly make him the next Jack Walker. That’s not to say he might not be of course, just showing that he isn’t necessarily the best choice just because of his past - and there may be genuinely valid reasons why he doesn’t appear to be the current preferred investor.
No one is saying that .
We are saying it’s a travesty he isn’t even being discussed at board level as a reasonably sound option
Oh, and tell all the patients at Manor Hospital that they’re not really in hospital but are still in a football ground and Kassam never built a stupid white elephant three sided stadium which he owned and then charged rent to the club he also owned. That never happens because “there’s no point”. Nobody does that.
We are saying it’s a travesty he isn’t even being discussed at board level as a reasonably sound option
Do you have hard evidence that a proposed bid by Andy Harman to inject cash into the club was not even discussed at board level as a reasonably sound option?
@drcongo - Nail hit on the head. Hayes's proposed stripping of Adams Park and taking the proceeds to build a ground leased to Hayes and then rented to WWFC for an annual rent (over £500k if I remember correctly) with a capacity over three times the club's record average attendance for a season can hardly be described as a charitable act.
What happened to Feethams (as well a too many other grounds) is a painful reminder of the real threat that WWFC could be placed under by selling out to consortia bearing gifts.
I don't want to tar anyone unduly with the same brush as countless chancers and charlatans who have run clubs into the ground for their own personal gain, however it would be remiss of any conscientious member of WWT to not ask the difficult questions and make sure that our town's football club isn't being sold down the river to a fate far worse than dead certain relegation the Conference South.
@marlowchair I appreciate it and in the circumstances even more sorry.
And apologies too if my perpetual questioning of you and your motives does cross the line of bullying. I’m Instinctively on your side of the argument (and seem to recall you like cricket and beer so you are a man of taste and good sense) but I do have a preference for taking emotions and opinions out of the equation when weighing up the evidence.
I don’t like cricket or beer; I love them. Seeing @marlowchair in a new light therefore and feeling sympathetic also if, as I understand it, his wife is very ill.
Feeling particularly mellow this morning after a wonderful hour sipping coffee as the rising sun filled the Hoe with light and a couple of seals popped up to say hello, so even less interested than usual in swapping personal abuse on social media. Bloody cold though.....
I am surprised @ReadingMarginalista that you think @drcongo hit the nail on the head as he seems to me to have confused different scenarios. None of Coventry, Oxford and Darlington were about asset stripping in the way he described.
oxford and Coventry were about trying to build sustainability at the level they were then at, similar in nature to successful schemes at the likes of Reading, Middlesbrough, Derby and indeed arguably our move from Loakes Park. The decisions were made in good faith by existing management (long before Sisu or Kassam). They got those decisions badly wrong , not helped by both clubs slipping down the leagues during the build but neither was a case of attempted asset stripping. Both clubs suffered harm as a result of those bad decisions but I am afraid ownership structure does not prevent human beings from making rank bad decisions with the best of intentions (as indeed we have found on occasion in trust ownership here).
Gourgeous George at Darlo similarly was trying to do the best for his club and town but let’s be honest, that scheme was always barking.
There is risk in any form of ownership but to be honest if you are going to base your decision on fear of bogeymen, you really should understand at least the reality of what previous “bogeymen” have done. Is your fear based on someone stripping the assets of the club (unlikely given the limited nature of the assets) or based on someone being too ambitious for the club and stretching too far for it to be sustainable?
Is your fear based on someone stripping the assets of the club (unlikely given the limited nature of the assets) or based on someone being too ambitious for the club and stretching too far for it to be sustainable?
Just for clarity, you're the one talking about asset stripping, not me. I'm talking about how easy it is to force through any kind of planning permission on the Adams Park land, a thing that you have repeatedly claimed as impossible.
I thought you were talking about asset stripping in your post at 8pm last night. If not asset stripping, is your concern then over ambitious growth?
No, I have said that the prospect of getting residential planning permission for the Adams Park site is very low due to its location. We have done our sale of town centre prime land to fund a bigger better stadium when we moved from Loakes Park. If resi was possible at AP, the car park would now be covered in houses. Some of the older factories on the access road would be long gone. It may be possible to get planning for industrial use but the value of that is much lower and even then site planning history is not encouraging.
I ask again though, a question no one seems to want to answer. If some form of asset stripping is your concern, would it help you if the club obtained an independent development valuation if that showed that your concerns were unfounded?
would it help you if the club obtained an independent development valuation if that showed that your concerns were unfounded?
No, because that's nonsense as I've already demonstrated. Planning rules are not written in stone never to change. Getting planning permission (residential or out of town commercial leisure which can be much more lucrative than residential and much more likely) is difficult on a site with an actively used football ground, which is what your independent valuation would be looking at. Getting either type of planning permission on an abandoned stadium with safety concerns is a doddle. You move first, ask for planning permission later. There were 4 years I believe between Oxford leaving the Manor Ground and it being given commercial leisure and employment development planning permission. Do you honestly not understand this?
Edit for clarity: Planning permission for the hospital build came about a year after he sold the land to his own company, a year in which he was basically holding the council hostage by threatening to leave it a derelict half demolished eyesore. He made £6m profit just by doing this. Planning for commercial leisure came even later than that. But of course, nobody does these things because that's not how you think asset stripping works.
Extra edit: Planning for residential was passed 10 years later too.
Well no, the independent valuation would be based on an assumption of vacant possession.
With respect I don’t think you understand the difficulties of getting planning permission for anything, especially in an area not zoned for that type of development. Perhaps you could clarify what sort of “out of town” commercial leisure you have in mind for the site that would be so lucrative. Perhaps you could also clarify why the car park land or some of the pretty secondary industrial sites next door have not already been converted to this use if planning is so easy.
I still don’t understand too why you seem so keen to avoid getting clarity on this matter from an independent property expert. I can’t help wondering if you are using unjustified fear of some form of asset stripping as a smokescreen for some other reason for not supporting outside investment.
With respect I don’t think you understand the difficulties of getting planning permission for anything, especially in an area not zoned for that type of development.
Seriously, read first then type. Read the planning history of the Manor Ground (which I've helpfully laid out for you above). Sold with no planning permission to his own company, planning permission granted for the hospital a year later, sold at a £6m profit, planning permission for commercial leisure 4 or so years after that, planning for residential another 5 years later. No planning permission now does not mean no planning permission in the future. An independent valuation would be based on the current planning state and therefore useless.
If you think getting planning permission for an "area not zoned for that type of development" is hard, then it's clearly a very very long time since you last visited High Wycombe. And given that I work half my week with planners at the moment, I think I might understand it slightly better than you. I have a vague recollection that Adams Park itself was zoned for light industrial only before they got permission to build the ground there.
Comments
If inflammatory comments is reminding people of when you were cheerleading Sharky Hayes 'Stadium grab' campaign, by stating to the media that Mr Hayes received a standing ovation, when everyone in that room that night, knew it never happened.
Then i'm guilty as charged !!
@glasshalffull - Could equally apply to you Mr Parry.
So for those of you who have already decided that Andy Harman is the saviour and questioning why he isn’t the preferred choice of the Trust Board (obviously because Mr Stroud et al are corrupt), how about if you replaced his name with that of another local, successful businessman who has a playing history with the club - and already has experience of running a football club.
Graham Westley.
Would any of you be so keen then? I’d wager not...
Just because Mr Harman has a connection to the club doesn’t suddenly make him the next Jack Walker. That’s not to say he might not be of course, just showing that he isn’t necessarily the best choice just because of his past - and there may be genuinely valid reasons why he doesn’t appear to be the current preferred investor.
@Fidget It's a shame the members (effectively the owners of this Club) won't get the opportunity to consider his proposals (if any).
Not the best example Mr Fidget.
Graham Westley was not a Wycombian and had a very short spell at Wycombe.
Where as Mr Harman hails from Totteridge, had 5 years at loakes park after coming through the reserves, also played for Marlow. Started his career at Holmer Green, played Sunday football for the Angel pub and still lives locally.
Feethams football ground today.
“A plan by the board of the Darlington Cricket Club to sell the former football ground for a housing development was controversial because of a 1903 Deed of Foundation of the Feethams Cricket Field Trust which stated that the land in question was acquired by the Trust "for the purpose of securing the said premises as an open space to be used for Cricket and other Athletic exercises".[3] However in 2009 the Board sold the football field to Esh Developments,[4][5] which on-sold the land in 2013 to Persimmon Homes. In 2014 Persimmon lodged a planning application to construct 82 homes rather than the 146 houses previously proposed.”
Feethams Wikipedia page
@DevC - perhaps you can enlighten us all with the inside knowledge you have about why this exact same thing couldn’t happen at Adams Park, and the inside knowledge you have about how else an investor could expect to turn a profit?
This whole thread once again underlines the dangers of certain posters leaking what they claim to be confidential information. I know Andy Harman and he’s a good guy. I have no idea if he has been ‘alienated’ by people involved with the club; I have no idea if he has made an offer to the club and if he has what that offer might have been. I have no idea who the other would be investors are or what they have offered. Therefore I’m prepared to wait until more information is available rather than leaping to conclusions based purely on rumours.
@drcongo , I could respond in the same aggressive manner that sadly seems so prevalent on social media but frankly would prefer not to. Is it really not possible to disagree about an important issue without descending to abuse.
As it happens, if you are describing asset stripping, you are quite wrong in "how it works". Asset strippers do not build "huge white elephant stadiums", they cost far too much money. Nor do they charge companies they own rent - there is no point taking cash from a company they own (known in business as wooden dollars). What they do do is prey on companies desperately short of cash with property in a prime residential area. The old Loakes Park would have been ideal, Adams Park less so - they would almost certainly not get resi planning permission. I ask you the same question I asked Wendover - if asset stripping is your concern, woyuld it help you if the trust arranged a independent development valuation of Adams park?
The lesson of Torquay though is pertinent to the issue we have in front of us. Torquay did (and for now still does) play at an asset in prime residential area. Torquay was run by well meaning club supporters who didnt have the resources to subsidise the club. Torquay couldnt sustain league football without subsidy. Torquay started slipping down the leagues but the well meaning supporters didnt take action quick enough to find external funds to halt the playing and financial slide. Torquay ran out of money as a result such that they teetered on the edge of insolvency. At the very last minute Torquay had to reach out to anyone they could to survive another day. The only person interested at that stage was an asset stripper. That is exactly the scenario the Trust board are trying to avoid.
Yes maybe, but.... there may have been many many declarations of interest over the years but do you think we should be informed of all of them and have the opportunity to consider all of the proposals?
Or should we leave it to the appointed people to make the decisions for us?
@drcongo - 15 love to Mr Dev!
Maybe he could pop down to Coventry and explain to them that it never happened to them because “that’s not how it works” and they must have imagined it all and they actually own the Ricoh and shouldn’t pay any more rent on it.
Should probably tell the people living in those houses on Feethams to move out too in case a football match breaks out. Never happens. Nobody builds big white elephant stadia. Nobody.
No one is saying that .
We are saying it’s a travesty he isn’t even being discussed at board level as a reasonably sound option
Oh, and tell all the patients at Manor Hospital that they’re not really in hospital but are still in a football ground and Kassam never built a stupid white elephant three sided stadium which he owned and then charged rent to the club he also owned. That never happens because “there’s no point”. Nobody does that.
Do you have hard evidence that a proposed bid by Andy Harman to inject cash into the club was not even discussed at board level as a reasonably sound option?
@drcongo - Nail hit on the head. Hayes's proposed stripping of Adams Park and taking the proceeds to build a ground leased to Hayes and then rented to WWFC for an annual rent (over £500k if I remember correctly) with a capacity over three times the club's record average attendance for a season can hardly be described as a charitable act.
What happened to Feethams (as well a too many other grounds) is a painful reminder of the real threat that WWFC could be placed under by selling out to consortia bearing gifts.
I don't want to tar anyone unduly with the same brush as countless chancers and charlatans who have run clubs into the ground for their own personal gain, however it would be remiss of any conscientious member of WWT to not ask the difficult questions and make sure that our town's football club isn't being sold down the river to a fate far worse than dead certain relegation the Conference South.
@marlowchair I appreciate it and in the circumstances even more sorry.
And apologies too if my perpetual questioning of you and your motives does cross the line of bullying. I’m Instinctively on your side of the argument (and seem to recall you like cricket and beer so you are a man of taste and good sense) but I do have a preference for taking emotions and opinions out of the equation when weighing up the evidence.
I don’t like cricket or beer; I love them. Seeing @marlowchair in a new light therefore and feeling sympathetic also if, as I understand it, his wife is very ill.
I always knew you were also a man of excellent taste and sense @micra as well as an upholder of standards we should all aspire to.
Feeling particularly mellow this morning after a wonderful hour sipping coffee as the rising sun filled the Hoe with light and a couple of seals popped up to say hello, so even less interested than usual in swapping personal abuse on social media. Bloody cold though.....
I am surprised @ReadingMarginalista that you think @drcongo hit the nail on the head as he seems to me to have confused different scenarios. None of Coventry, Oxford and Darlington were about asset stripping in the way he described.
oxford and Coventry were about trying to build sustainability at the level they were then at, similar in nature to successful schemes at the likes of Reading, Middlesbrough, Derby and indeed arguably our move from Loakes Park. The decisions were made in good faith by existing management (long before Sisu or Kassam). They got those decisions badly wrong , not helped by both clubs slipping down the leagues during the build but neither was a case of attempted asset stripping. Both clubs suffered harm as a result of those bad decisions but I am afraid ownership structure does not prevent human beings from making rank bad decisions with the best of intentions (as indeed we have found on occasion in trust ownership here).
Gourgeous George at Darlo similarly was trying to do the best for his club and town but let’s be honest, that scheme was always barking.
There is risk in any form of ownership but to be honest if you are going to base your decision on fear of bogeymen, you really should understand at least the reality of what previous “bogeymen” have done. Is your fear based on someone stripping the assets of the club (unlikely given the limited nature of the assets) or based on someone being too ambitious for the club and stretching too far for it to be sustainable?
Are you saying that Kassam doesn't own the Kassam and never charged rent for it then?
Just for clarity, you're the one talking about asset stripping, not me. I'm talking about how easy it is to force through any kind of planning permission on the Adams Park land, a thing that you have repeatedly claimed as impossible.
@drcongo - particularly if you know the right people in the right places and have a good supply of brown envelopes!
I thought you were talking about asset stripping in your post at 8pm last night. If not asset stripping, is your concern then over ambitious growth?
No, I have said that the prospect of getting residential planning permission for the Adams Park site is very low due to its location. We have done our sale of town centre prime land to fund a bigger better stadium when we moved from Loakes Park. If resi was possible at AP, the car park would now be covered in houses. Some of the older factories on the access road would be long gone. It may be possible to get planning for industrial use but the value of that is much lower and even then site planning history is not encouraging.
I ask again though, a question no one seems to want to answer. If some form of asset stripping is your concern, would it help you if the club obtained an independent development valuation if that showed that your concerns were unfounded?
Give it a break @DevC, you are talking b******ks as usual.
No, because that's nonsense as I've already demonstrated. Planning rules are not written in stone never to change. Getting planning permission (residential or out of town commercial leisure which can be much more lucrative than residential and much more likely) is difficult on a site with an actively used football ground, which is what your independent valuation would be looking at. Getting either type of planning permission on an abandoned stadium with safety concerns is a doddle. You move first, ask for planning permission later. There were 4 years I believe between Oxford leaving the Manor Ground and it being given commercial leisure and employment development planning permission. Do you honestly not understand this?
Edit for clarity: Planning permission for the hospital build came about a year after he sold the land to his own company, a year in which he was basically holding the council hostage by threatening to leave it a derelict half demolished eyesore. He made £6m profit just by doing this. Planning for commercial leisure came even later than that. But of course, nobody does these things because that's not how you think asset stripping works.
Extra edit: Planning for residential was passed 10 years later too.
And finally, because I actually have to go work with a team of planners now...
Please link to the post. I don't see one where I mentioned asset stripping last night.
Well no, the independent valuation would be based on an assumption of vacant possession.
With respect I don’t think you understand the difficulties of getting planning permission for anything, especially in an area not zoned for that type of development. Perhaps you could clarify what sort of “out of town” commercial leisure you have in mind for the site that would be so lucrative. Perhaps you could also clarify why the car park land or some of the pretty secondary industrial sites next door have not already been converted to this use if planning is so easy.
I still don’t understand too why you seem so keen to avoid getting clarity on this matter from an independent property expert. I can’t help wondering if you are using unjustified fear of some form of asset stripping as a smokescreen for some other reason for not supporting outside investment.
F@%k me...... 120 unread posts !!
And no I havnt bothered to read them all
Seriously, read first then type. Read the planning history of the Manor Ground (which I've helpfully laid out for you above). Sold with no planning permission to his own company, planning permission granted for the hospital a year later, sold at a £6m profit, planning permission for commercial leisure 4 or so years after that, planning for residential another 5 years later. No planning permission now does not mean no planning permission in the future. An independent valuation would be based on the current planning state and therefore useless.
If you think getting planning permission for an "area not zoned for that type of development" is hard, then it's clearly a very very long time since you last visited High Wycombe. And given that I work half my week with planners at the moment, I think I might understand it slightly better than you. I have a vague recollection that Adams Park itself was zoned for light industrial only before they got permission to build the ground there.